Gun death becoming like diarrhea SERIOUS....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-07-2016, 05:15 AM
RE: Gun death becoming like diarrhea SERIOUS....
See above post.....

THAT'S how to prove a point

(or twenty)...

KUDOS WD!!

Big Grin

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like onlinebiker's post
14-07-2016, 08:38 AM
RE: Gun death becoming like diarrhea SERIOUS....
@WhiskeyDebates

there is one weakness in the study about the self defense usage of guns you presented. It doesn't mention if the usage of a firearm was necessary or even reasonnable in those circomstances. If a spot a group of teen/young adult smoking and talking on my loan and decide to go out with my shotgun and tell them to fuck off because they are tresspassing on my property, I would be counted as using my gun in self defense. Yet, I could just have left my house with a cellphone and threaten to call the cops and obtain the same results. Or, maybe if I asked them politely they would have moved away because they just wanted to chat not cause trouble. For an argument in favor of gun as self defense tool, you would need to demonstrate that a firearm was absolutly necessary to defend yourself. Maybe a baseball bat or a hockey stick would have done the trick just as well. Who knows. There also another problem, it doesn't mention the legitimacy of the use of a gun for self defense in various circomstances. Should you be allowed to shoot a thief on sight even if he presented no direct threat to you or your family and was unarmed (like most thieves are). What do you think about this issue?

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2016, 09:07 AM
RE: Gun death becoming like diarrhea SERIOUS....
(14-07-2016 08:38 AM)epronovost Wrote:  @WhiskeyDebates

there is one weakness in the study about the self defense usage of guns you presented. It doesn't mention if the usage of a firearm was necessary or even reasonnable in those circomstances. If a spot a group of teen/young adult smoking and talking on my loan and decide to go out with my shotgun and tell them to fuck off because they are tresspassing on my property, I would be counted as using my gun in self defense.

Why would that be counted? If the police were not involved after the fact it would not be counted.

Quote:Yet, I could just have left my house with a cellphone and threaten to call the cops and obtain the same results. Or, maybe if I asked them politely they would have moved away because they just wanted to chat not cause trouble. For an argument in favor of gun as self defense tool, you would need to demonstrate that a firearm was absolutly necessary to defend yourself. Maybe a baseball bat or a hockey stick would have done the trick just as well. Who knows. There also another problem, it doesn't mention the legitimacy of the use of a gun for self defense in various circomstances. Should you be allowed to shoot a thief on sight even if he presented no direct threat to you or your family and was unarmed (like most thieves are). What do you think about this issue?

In many jurisdictions it is legal to use deadly force against an intruder without checking to see if he's armed. It is the Castle Doctrine.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
14-07-2016, 09:35 AM
RE: Gun death becoming like diarrhea SERIOUS....
(14-07-2016 08:38 AM)epronovost Wrote:  @WhiskeyDebates

there is one weakness in the study about the self defense usage of guns you presented. It doesn't mention if the usage of a firearm was necessary or even reasonnable in those circomstances. If a spot a group of teen/young adult smoking and talking on my loan and decide to go out with my shotgun and tell them to fuck off because they are tresspassing on my property, I would be counted as using my gun in self defense. Yet, I could just have left my house with a cellphone and threaten to call the cops and obtain the same results. Or, maybe if I asked them politely they would have moved away because they just wanted to chat not cause trouble. For an argument in favor of gun as self defense tool, you would need to demonstrate that a firearm was absolutly necessary to defend yourself. Maybe a baseball bat or a hockey stick would have done the trick just as well. Who knows. There also another problem, it doesn't mention the legitimacy of the use of a gun for self defense in various circomstances. Should you be allowed to shoot a thief on sight even if he presented no direct threat to you or your family and was unarmed (like most thieves are). What do you think about this issue?

Yes as with most studies on anything there are issues with the studies on defensive use of firearms. One of the the things that I don't like about the way the data was collected in some of the studies that resulted in high end estimates, i.e. in the millions per year, is they included responses from people that weren't legally allowed to have guns at the time. An example of that would be a convicted felon drug dealer that used a gun to defend himself during a home invasion by people there to steal his money/drugs. But the bottom line like it or not is that the best data available says that in the US guns are used in defensive situations more often than they hurt people.

No you don't need to demonstrate that a gun was absolutely necessary in a given situation. For one thing in the states most laws aren't written that way. Use of deadly force be it a gun or a baseball bat is allowed once a reasonable person has reason to believe someone is a violent threat. Whether or not someone's assessment of the level of threat they face is reasonable is determined by the courts. Also applicable here is that once again the best data we have suggests that a firearm is the most effective tool for self defense. The studies show that a person that uses a firearm to defend themselves against a violent threat is less likely to be injured or killed than someone that uses any other means including submission to the act. If the use of force is justified then this alone is enough to justify the use of a firearm.

Your last question is really what castle doctrine is supposed to be about. In states where castle doctrine has been codified it basically says that it is reasonable to assume that a thief, armed or not, is a physical threat if they enter your home while you are there. In such a case the use of deadly force is legally justified. Having said that if you shoot him in the back while he is trying to get away (with or without your stuff) you don't want me on the jury at your trial. Once someone is trying to leave they are no longer a threat and use of force is no longer justified.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2016, 09:54 AM
Gun death becoming like diarrhea SERIOUS....
(14-07-2016 09:35 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  Once someone is trying to leave they are no longer a threat and use of force is no longer justified.

Not trying to open up a can of worms but what do you think that person will do once they escape? Leave the life of crime? Think of Spider-Man. He didn't do anything and then his uncle was killed by the thug he let get away.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2016, 10:20 AM (This post was last modified: 14-07-2016 10:26 AM by epronovost.)
RE: Gun death becoming like diarrhea SERIOUS....
@Chas and Popeye's Pappy

Considering what both of you replied, woudn't that add a further layer of bias on the study for guns as tool of self defense. If local laws are designed to «encourage» and «facilitate» the usage of guns in self defense, isn't logical that you found out that guns are indeed used often in such circomstances? Any self defense law that favorise or allow the use of lethal force or threat of lethal force as a first response to physical threat will favorise the usage of guns as self defense tools. On the other hand, in a country that doesn't allow a Stand your Ground or Castle Doctrine, gun use for self defense becomes much more difficult. Couldn't those two laws, in place in many american states, present gun use in self defense on a better side, more useful and frequent, than it actualy is? It also avoid the more fundamental question of the social acceptability of lethal force or threat of lethal force as a first answer to threat of violence.

Furthermoreby researching a little bit on the subject of gun used in self defense, the efficency of gun use is a subject to a lot of debate in the scientific community due to difficulty to have good samples and the numerous special circomstances surrounding the usage of the gun in self defense. Just look at the wikipedia page on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

For every study that claims that guns are better than other means of self defense another claim the opposite and another claim that its true for a specific group of person (men of average income in urban area) while women, poor people and people in rural area don't gain any advantages from it. While guns are certainly not diabolical contraptions, they don't seem to be that helpful either. Data interpretation on the subject seems to vary enormoulsy depending on the study.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2016, 10:22 AM
RE: Gun death becoming like diarrhea SERIOUS....
(14-07-2016 09:35 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  ... if you shoot him in the back while he is trying to get away (with or without your stuff)

(my bolding)

So as long as one keeps their back to you, they have the freedom to clean you out?

Defending life, limb and property.

Got my stuff, going down.

"They think, therefore I am" - god
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2016, 10:24 AM
RE: Gun death becoming like diarrhea SERIOUS....
(14-07-2016 10:22 AM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  
(14-07-2016 09:35 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  Having said that if you shoot him in the back while he is trying to get away (with or without your stuff)

(my bolding)

So as long as one keeps their back to you, they have the freedom to clean you out?

Defending life, limb and property.

Got my stuff, going down.

No, if they are in the house they are fair game.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
14-07-2016, 10:34 AM
RE: Gun death becoming like diarrhea SERIOUS....
(14-07-2016 10:20 AM)epronovost Wrote:  @Chas and Popeye's Pappy

Considering what both of you replied, woudn't that add a further layer of bias on the study for guns as tool of self defense. If local laws are designed to «encourage» and «facilitate» the usage of guns in self defense, isn't logical that you found out that guns are indeed used often in such circomstances? Any self defense law that favorise or allow the use of lethal force or threat of lethal force as a first response to physical threat will favorise the usage of guns as self defense tools. On the other hand, in a country that doesn't allow a Stand your Ground or Castle Doctrine, gun use for self defense becomes much more difficult. Couldn't those two laws, in place in many american states, present gun use in self defense on a better side, more useful and frequent, than it actualy is? It also avoid the more fundamental question of the social acceptability of lethal force or threat of lethal force as a first answer to threat of violence.

Furthermoreby researching a little bit on the subject of gun used in self defense, the efficency of gun use is a subject to a lot of debate in the scientific community due to difficulty to have good samples and the numerous special circomstances surrounding the usage of the gun in self defense. Just look at the wikipedia page on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

For every study that claims that guns are better than other means of self defense another claim the opposite and another claim that its true for a specific group of person (men of average income in urban area) while women, poor people and people in rural area don't gain any advantages from it. While guns are certainly not diabolical contraptions, they don't seem to be that helpful either. Data interpretation on the subject seems to vary enormoulsy depending on the study.

From that Wikipedia article:
Quote:A 2013 National Research Council report found that studies looking at the effectiveness of different self-protective strategies had consistently found that victims who used guns defensively had lower injury rates than did victims who used other strategies.
A 2015 study by Solnick and Hemenway which analyzed NCVS data reported "little evidence that [DGU] is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss."

Given that studies appear to have inconsistent data and conflicting conclusions, one can't rely on them for clear answers.

Better data gathering is required. However, there are clearly scenarios where having a gun is beneficial and others where it might be detrimental.
Statistics only tell one so much. Each person and situation is unique and must be judged on its own merits.
For someone trained and prepared, a firearm is likely beneficial.
For someone who is not familiar with firearms, it is probably a bad idea to have one.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2016, 10:42 AM
RE: Gun death becoming like diarrhea SERIOUS....
(14-07-2016 10:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  Better data gathering is required. However, there are clearly scenarios where having a gun is beneficial and others where it might be detrimental.
Statistics only tell one so much. Each person and situation is unique and must be judged on its own merits.
For someone trained and prepared, a firearm is likely beneficial.
For someone who is not familiar with firearms, it is probably a bad idea to have one.

I would agree with with your assessment, but would add the following criterias.

For someone trained and prepared, a firearm is likely beneficial.
For someone who is not familiar with firearms or unprepared to use them, it is probably a bad idea to have one.
For someone involved in criminal activities, DUG (defensive use of a gun) is probably a bad idea.
For someone living in a high density area, it's probably a bad idea to have one.
For someone living in a rural area, it's likely beneficial.
For personnal defense, it's likely beneficial.
For home defense, it's likely pointless (neither good or bad).

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: